Abstract
Preference-based argumentation frameworks are instantiation of Dung’s framework in which the defeat relation (in the sense of Dung) is computed from an attack relation and a preference relation over the set of arguments. Value-based argumentation framework is a preference-based argumentation framework where the preference relation over arguments is derived from a preference relation over values they promote. We extend value-based argumentation framework with collective defeats and arguments promoting values with various strengths. In the extended framework, we define a function which computes the strength of a collective defeat. We define desired properties for the proposed function. Surprisingly, we show that this function obeying the corresponding properties is Choquet integral, a well-known aggregation function at work in multiple criteria decision.
Keywords
- Preference Relation
- Aggregation Function
- Monotonicity Condition
- Multiple Criterion Decision
- Argumentation Framework
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 29(2), 125–169 (2002)
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., LeBerre, D.: Comparing arguments using preference orderings for argument-based reasoning. In: ICTAI 1996, pp. 400–403 (1996)
Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)
Bossert, W.: Preference extension rules for ranking sets of alternatives with a fixed cardinality. Theory and Decision 39, 301–317 (1995)
Bulling, N., Dix, J., Chesñevar, C.: Modelling coalitions: Atl + argumentation. In: AAMAS, pp. 681–688 (2008)
Choquet, G.: Theory of capacities. Annales de l’Institut Fourier 5, 131–295 (1953)
Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Marquis, P., Ouali, M.: Weighted attacks in argumentation frameworks. In: KR (2012)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)
Dunne, P.E., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Inconsistency tolerance in weighted argument systems. In: AAMAS, pp. 851–858 (2009)
Grabisch, M.: The application of fuzzy integrals in multicriteria decision making. European Journal of Operational Research 89, 445–456 (1996)
Grabisch, M., Labreuche, C.: A decade of application of the Choquet and Sugeno integrals in multi-criteria decision aid. Annals of Operation Research 175, 247–286 (2010)
Kaci, S.: Refined preference-based argumentation frameworks. In: COMMA, pp. 299–310 (2010)
Kaci, S., Labreuche, C.: Arguing with valued preference relations. In: Liu, W. (ed.) ECSQARU 2011. LNCS, vol. 6717, pp. 62–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Preference-based argumentation: Arguments supporting multiple values. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 48, 730–751 (2008)
Klement, E., Mesiar, R., Pap, E.: Triangular Norms. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000)
Krantz, D.H., Luce, R.D., Suppes, P., Tversky, A.: Foundations of measurement. Additive and Polynomial Representations, vol. 1. Academic Press (1971)
Labreuche, C., Grabisch, M.: The Choquet integral for the aggregation of interval scales in multicriteria decision making. Fuzzy Sets & Systems 137, 11–26 (2003)
Marichal, J.-L.: An axiomatic approach of the discrete Choquet integral as a tool to aggregate interacting criteria. IEEE Tr. on Fuzzy Systems 8(6), 800–807 (2000)
Martínez, D.C., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: An abstract argumentation framework with varied-strength attacks. In: KR, pp. 135–144 (2008)
Martínez, D.C., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Strong and weak forms of abstract argument defense. In: COMMA, pp. 216–227 (2008)
Nielsen, S.H., Parsons, S.: A generalization of dung’s abstract framework for argumentation: Arguing with sets of attacking arguments. In: Maudet, N., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4766, pp. 54–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Prakken, H.: A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning. In: ICAIL, pp. 85–94 (2005)
Roth, A.: The college admissions problem is not equivalent to the marriage problem. Journal of Economic Theory 36, 277–288 (1985)
Simari, G.R., Loui, R.P.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53, 125–157 (1992)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kaci, S., Labreuche, C. (2013). Representing Synergy among Arguments with Choquet Integral. In: van der Gaag, L.C. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7958. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39091-3_26
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39091-3_26
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-39090-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-39091-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)